Группа авторов

A Companion to Greek Lyric


Скачать книгу

we are ill, we call on all the vast repertoire of modern medicine, confident that science and technology will have the answer to our malady. Today, when we enter an athletic competition, we rely on dietetics, training, and good equipment instead of prayers to Hermes or Iris. Today, when a state deliberates on an international crisis, it does not ask Delphi or Dodona or another oracle for advice, but rather it calls on all possible experts and, in a democracy, it debates in the relevant houses, before it, for example, imposes sanctions or declares war on another country. No need to labor the point. The old gods are dead, science and technology rule. Since most classicists—I mean teachers and students—at modern universities pursue the scientific way of thinking, it is hard for us to make the imaginative leap necessary to understand what an ancient prayer, hymn, or ritual really meant to the individual praying or the group singing.1 They certainly would not have done it if they thought it was wasted breath. So our approach can be either that of the interested observer or we can attempt somehow to step inside the ancient mindset. It is in fact the old dichotomy of the anthropologist: emic (the perspective from within the social group) or etic (the perspective of the observer). The external observer of a rite from a different culture can interpret the rite from his point of view, while the person performing the rite may have a quite different “reason.”2 We do not need to go too far down this road. Suffice it to remind readers that in the religious lyric we will be discussing there is very much an emic and an etic standpoint.

      Religion itself as a thing in its own right did not exist either in the archaic or the classical period. The Greeks had no one word for it, as scholars never tire of pointing out.12 No need to rehearse that argument. The converse of this truism, however, is that religion was everywhere and intertwined with everything, as we shall see. The Greeks did not separate religion from other activities, but included it in the sense that the gods and their entourage made themselves felt, and demanded recognition, in all walks of life. It might be true to say that the gods then were as omnipresent and omnipotent as the Internet today. As this spreads its tentacles into almost all our activities nowadays, and watches over our shoulder, so then the Greeks believed they lived and prospered by the grace of the gods and suffered, and died, by the will of the gods. Nevertheless it is important to remember that at this time “religion” was organized only in the sense that the early polis began to choose its priests, that is, the functionaries who would supervise sacrifice on the various civic altars, and the times that was appropriate. Otherwise there were many freelancers: prophets, seers, purveyors of the Mysteries, healers, and so on.13 They were a motley crew, as Aristophanes liked to point out later.14 Their reputation was, no doubt, predicated on their apparent success. The Greek army attacking Troy had its Chalcas; the Spartans at Plataea their Teisamenos; the Ten Thousand in Xenophon’s Anabasis their Silanos (1.7.18), or generally “prophets” (4.3.17 μάντεις).15 Likewise, holy scripture had never been organized into a unity like the books of the Bible; there were sacred texts such as those composed by hexameter poets such as Orpheus, Musaios, Olen, but these did not form a coherent unity, and nobody tried to force them into such. Thus “religion” did not exist as a recognized body of sacred scripture. All these people and entities vied with each other for the truth,16 as, indeed, did the gods. There was competition and rivalry among the gods, as there was among holy men on earth. True, as Herodotus says, Homer and Hesiod did their best to give the Greeks a theogony, and organize their worship into something like a coherent system (2.52), but their works were still poetry and nothing like holy law, or catechism.